The Redskins just need to change their logo right?

bravenrace wrote: My god you people are missing the point in the name of creating an argument that doesn't exist. On one hand you are saying that calling a sports team Redskins is offensive to indians. But then you say that indians don't have red skin. So if that term doesn't apply to them, why should they be offended? More to the point, why are you?

So, if I make a team called the "Bama toothless cousin marrin' hicks", someone from Alabama should not be offended if he doesn't have a cousinwife and a full set of teeth?

(you may have noticed that many offensive terms / phrases involves things are not exactly universally correct, or even correct at all)

dculberson wrote: Also, people might need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Sad but true.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Nothing says "Free Country" like some top-down coercion from meddlesome government entities to make you conform to their will, eh?

Exactly, it's about time the government stopped imposing rules and regulations on how people are using the Redskins name. Thank goodness for this new step in reducing the size and intervention of government.

bravenrace wrote: You mean that you think it's a racial slur. I have found nothing that officially states that it is. Please make the distinction between fact and your opinion. You know why it wasn't viewed by anyone as a slur when it was created? Because there was nothing wrong with calling someone with red skin a redskin. It wasn't a slur, it was a fact. The American society has just devolved into thin skinned PC weenies that aren't happy unless they have something to complain about. The people that are the most upset about this aren't Indians. There are many references that point that out. If it doesn't offend the majority of Indians, then it should matter to anyone else either.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/washington-redskins-trademark-ruling-108025.html

I still think all this flak is just a ruse to keep people from remembering how badly RG3 has been playing........

Tom Suddard wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Nothing says "Free Country" like some top-down coercion from meddlesome government entities to make you conform to their will, eh?

Exactly, it's about time the government stopped imposing rules and regulations on how people are using the Redskins name. Thank goodness for this new step in reducing the size and intervention of government.

I like what you did there.

edit - for the record, I don't really care about the issue that much, but I do find the outrage about the outrage a bit ironic.

Tom Suddard wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Nothing says "Free Country" like some top-down coercion from meddlesome government entities to make you conform to their will, eh?

Exactly, it's about time the government stopped imposing rules and regulations on how people are using the Redskins name. Thank goodness for this new step in reducing the size and intervention of government.

Well then, lets cancel all approved, on-the-books trademarks for arbitrary reasons. Let's also incarcerate people retroactively for infractions to laws we just made up!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Tom Suddard wrote: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Holy crap - you are right!

http://nationalreport.net/california-allows-first-ever-state-recognized-human-animal-marriage/

well, equal protection doesnt apply because they wouldn't defend the redskin name to anyone apparently.

i'm more uncomfortable with the idea that the government is allowed to set a 'moral thought' policy. I have to ask democrat voters if they think this is a good idea after republicans take the congress and the executive in an election.

bravenrace wrote: The vast majority of Indians are not offended by that sports teams name, or the Cleveland indians for that matter.

First off, you are way more upset about this than any of us who are saying they should change it. Secondly, I'd like a little proof that the "vast majority" of Indians are not offended by the name. The only poll I know of is 10 years old, and a lot can change in that much time.

At the end of the day, what is the negative of changing the name? It costs Dan Snyder some money to change the logos? BFD, he'll make it up by selling new merchandise.

Although I find some people seem to be wildly sensitive about being offended I also find it pretty silly that someone would tell someone else what they should and should not be offended by.

I vote they call them the Washington Honkeys. Change the red guy to a pasty white guy with a buzz cut and a goofy grin. Problem solved, because the crackers don't get offended by the name of a stupid football team. No really, most of us don't.

Starting to wonder if this really is the land of the free and the home of the (censored to not offend someone).

Toyman01 wrote: Starting to wonder if this really is the land of the free and the home of the (censored to not offend someone).

Nice! (storing for future use)

No one's considered the name Washington Censors? "All your offense are belong to us."

A Canadian satirical news show was having a ball with the (offensive) term "Squaw" a few years back.

The natives were campaigning to get people to stop using the term because it is derogatory.

The show suggested changing the name of the town "Squamish" to "Indian-Princess-mish"

They also suggested that the term "Paddy-wagon" was offensive to people of Irish descent and that the name should be changed to "Mobile Native Outreach Center"

Toyman01 wrote: I vote they call them the Washington Honkeys. Change the red guy to a pasty white guy with a buzz cut and a goofy grin. Problem solved, because the crackers don't get offended by the name of a stupid football team. No really, most of us don't.

That's true, but unrelated to the question at hand. Until I can walk a mile in another man's shoes, I can't assume that what does or doesn't offend me would offend or not offend him. That's why I want proof about the "vast majority" of Native Americans who don't care. Because if I see it, I will change my mind. Yes, that's right everybody, I'm offering you the chance to actually win an internet argument!

Toyman01 wrote: I vote they call them the Washington Honkeys. Change the red guy to a pasty white guy with a buzz cut and a goofy grin. Problem solved, because the crackers don't get offended by the name of a stupid football team. No really, most of us don't. Starting to wonder if this really is the land of the free and the home of the (censored to not offend someone).

That's because the white guys haven't constantly been E36 M3 on, owned, segregated, beaten, lynched, mass murdered, put in internment camps, or had their (native) land taken away over the last couple hundred years.

Us poor white guys just can't catch a break...

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm offended by the NAACP, can I force them to change? Don't they know the term colored people is offensive?

Pretty sure NAAAAP wouldn't go over well

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Well then, lets cancel all approved, on-the-books trademarks for arbitrary reasons. Let's also incarcerate people retroactively for infractions to laws we just made up!

madmallard wrote: well, equal protection doesnt apply because they wouldn't defend the redskin name to anyone apparently. i'm more uncomfortable with the idea that the government is allowed to set a 'moral thought' policy. I have to ask democrat voters if they think this is a good idea after republicans take the congress and the executive in an election.

Once again, this is not a new law. Research "trademark an obscenity" if you would like to read more. You can not and never have been able to trademark obscenities. In practical use the courts determine what is obscene. Neither of you appears to understand that.

Cone_Junkie wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: I vote they call them the Washington Honkeys. Change the red guy to a pasty white guy with a buzz cut and a goofy grin. Problem solved, because the crackers don't get offended by the name of a stupid football team. No really, most of us don't. Starting to wonder if this really is the land of the free and the home of the (censored to not offend someone).

That's because the white guys haven't constantly been E36 M3 on, owned, segregated, beaten, lynched, mass murdered, put in internment camps, or had their (native) land taken away over the last couple hundred years. Us poor white guys just can't catch a break...

Except for, most of the early slaves in the New World were white. Irish to be exact. Killed or sold into slavery to steal their land. Persecuted by the English who tried to wipe them out. Linky

I hate to break it to you but the indian and black persecution isn't the first, only or last time a race, nationality or religious group was been persecuted. It's just the noisiest. Humans have been doing despicable things to each other for tens of thousand of years. You should check into some of the things whites, blacks, asian, and indians did and do to each other and to their own kind. I'm fairly indifferent to what happened hundreds of years ago and being offended by a name is just childish and the sign of a small mind.

My mother covered that fairly well in kindergarten. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. Maybe more parents should teach their children that same phrase.

I'm Irish, maybe I should contact the Queen Elizabeth about the persecution of my ancestors. Crap, I'm Scottish too, I sure am sick of the drunk jokes.

Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.

Edited to add a link. And again for clarity.

Some of my ancestors came over as indentured servants so Toyman's comments apply to me as well. I also have one ancestor (Don Juan McQueen, also known as John McQueen, the subject of a book by Eugenia Price) who owned most of Central Florida and a whole buncha slaves, he lost it all. Here's how I feel about it: I personally had ~zip~ to do with that and the people who crapped on other family members are long dead. I won't forget the lessons of their lives but I'll be damned if I will take a bunch of crap for it, either.

Once again, *this is not a new law*.

I didnt assert that it was, so I'm not sure why you bring that up...

Research "trademark an obscenity" if you would like to read more. You can not and never have been able to trademark obscenities. In practical use the courts determine what is obscene. Neither of you appears to understand that.

In practical terms, the USPTO is part of the department of commerce, which is part of the EXECUTIVE cabinet, not the judicial department.

This particular news story does not involve any judicial findings. There was an appeal filed within the commerce department's board, all of this took place within the executive branch.

So my observation stands. This was a policy pursued by an executive department staffed by appointees of President Obama, who at their board's sole discretion in an appeal set forth that the term was disparaging, and would not renew the trademark privileges.

and I reiterate the same thought: I have to ask democrat voters if they think this is a good policy to have a cabinet of the executive branch the defacto group determining a moral policy after republicans take the executive in an election sometime in the future.

especially in light of the text of the ruling:

The ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term ‘Redskins’ to be disparaging when the respective registrations [were] issued... at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term to be offensive...Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite...To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals.

so lets make that clear. a term can be hi-jacked as disparaging if the board feels a case is made in their eyes if the group its purported to disparage has less than 1/3 of them feeling disparaged.

As long as we're looking at the issue, lets lay out what exactly is happening here, and if you support the action, then thats fine as long as you understand what happened. I don't really care about the disparaging vs not disparaging issue, but this standard used is more troubling to me.... :[

How about all us honkeys go after White Castle?

I don't live in a castle and I don't eat crap like that, I find their stores offensive.